I notice politicians playing a verbal trick on uneducated media listeners.
The trick is to say "the cost of action versus inaction". Shallow listeners will assume that action or inaction are opposite alternatives of the same thing, they are not. Australia will pay both.
The cost of "action" is the cost to Australia of action by Australia. The cost of "inaction" referred to is the cost to Australia of inaction by the world. Hence by paying for "action" Australia will not avoid the cost of "inaction". We will pay both because (if you believe in global warming) China and India have no intent of changing course.
